Hello all,

one of our service users receives Carers Allowance (£48.65) and receives Income Support. she had been getting extra CA amount for her children, this stopped in august 2005 when the children became non-deps and CA reverted back to the basic amount.
i recently checked her benefit breakdown and noted that DWP were using a figure of £69 for CA. CA Unit have confirmed the amount of CA she gets is £48.65 and that the child dependant amounts stopped in august 2005.

dwp have refused to backdate the IS arrears.
in a letter they have stated '... failed the test of reasonableness...do not meet the criteria C&P REG 19 not satisfied'

personlly i don't think reg 19 has got anything to do with it?

should i seek an appeal on official error grounds? or should i ask them to revise the original decision on the ground of change in circs?

or is it a failiure to disclose on the part of the client (thinking abount B/Hinchy)?

thanx in anticipation

Yes, it's nothing to do with Reg.19, or Re B or Hinchy, directly at least. It's about late review or supersession: Regs. 3-8, D+A Regs. Unfortunately your client has passed the 13 month absolute limit for using any of these provisions, except review for official error under 3(5)(a) which is difficult to argue and doesn't carry a right of appeal.

I thought Reg.7A(2) might help but it's tied to disability benefit decisions.

You can't appeal on official error grounds since there is no right of appeal against official error decisions. You can't request a revision on change of circs since only supersession is available on these grounds annd supersession runs straight into the backdating restrictions in Reg.7.

However since it is a clear underpayment, no doubt in deserving circumstances etc., I would bung an appeal in anyway and see what comes up in the papers. Not a technical appeal, just express outrage about the lack of liaison. Demand to know what systems they have for liaising with the CA unit. There might be some trace of earlier information which IS could have picked up and then you can ask the Tribunal (not the decision maker) to consider an official error revision.

Richard Atkinson